5 ms·
>One of them seems to show, albeit in an obscured way, text from a Supreme Court decision related to the PROTECT Act, a 2003 federal law that states child porno
by claudiawerner 4y ago
>One of them seems to show, albeit in an obscured way, text from a Supreme Court decision related to the PROTECT Act, a 2003 federal law that states child pornography is not protected by free speech.
This is not the whole truth; it's an excerpt from Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition, which was a case in which it was decided that fictional depictions of minors that don't exist nude or engaged in sexual acts is protected speech under 1A. If anything, its placement seems even tongue-in-cheek; many other countries do not have as thorough free speech protections, and such material is outright illegal.
The "Twitter users" mentioned in the article likley refers to Sh0eonhead who has a history of stirring up controversy around child sexualization with very little evidence, only insinuation and conspiracy style thinking. She's figured out that the one thing that unites the political spectrum is the mere hint of child sexualization and it's being milked for all it is. We saw similar last year, with the 'Cuties' debacle, which was also based on mere insinuation and conspiracy.
Truly a nothingburger story, like most stories based off a few tweets.
- rabite 4y agoYou're leaving out all the photos on Lotta Volkova's Instagram. These are not a "nothingburger" it is obviously the product of a sick mind that likes to imply the sexual suffering and physical injury of children. https://nitter.net/jakeshieldsajj/status/1597051525830152192#m https://nitter.net/jakeshieldsajj/status/1597051525830152192...
- claudiawerner 4y agoMy comment was only in reference to the photoshoot set containing the document or the 'BDSM bear'; my point is that these alone feed into an outrage machine that goes nowhere. As for Volkova, I don't know enough to judge, but you might be right, I don't know; but it's a separate issue, in which there may be more under the cover than the usual insinuation and conspiracy thinking.
- chrischen 4y agoThe fact that Lotta Volkova is not even mentioned in this "Explained" article and the fact that a lot of misinformation is being thrown around (people trying to blame the photographer) just goes to show how much fake controversy is potentially being drummed up here.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoNGL, most of it just looks kinda innocuously edgy and made for shock value. For all we know she's had like 1 edgy photo out of 100 normal ones and then someone just collated the creepiest ones? Do we know the context of any of these? [Edited to add: I don't know any of these people, fashion, or anything. I'm however extremely skeptical of conspiracy theory talk, poorly-contextualized information, and so need way more than context-free photos allegedly from an instagram page.]
- moralestapia 4y ago>A room covered in blood from what seems to be a real homicide scene >innocuously edgy No way.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoThe picture you mentioned looks more like something you see out of a police procedural or true crime TV show, which are very very popular genres of entertainment that are treated like popcorn watching. Bingeable, fun! To be clear, I just don't think they're any more edgy than what is already normalized. It's just easy to prime the brain into thinking it's more serious than it is, because it's being put into an ominous context. In reality, simulated murder and children in one-pieces are already normalized as popcorn-level entertainment in the context of tv shows and gymnastics. If this is bad then we should really be cracking down harder on way more stuff than an instagram page.
- Vecr 4y agoRemoved, but here's an archive link: https://archive.ph/OpZDB https://archive.ph/OpZDB